Location privacy took a hit in California yesterday when Governor Jerry Brown vetoedSB 1434, an EFF- and ACLU-sponsored bill that would have required law enforcement to apply for a search warrant in order to obtain location tracking information. Despite the bill's passing through the state legislature with overwhelming bipartisan support, despite local newspaper editorials in favor of the bill, and despite more than 1,300 concerned Californians using our action center to urge him to sign the bill into law, Governor Brown instead decided to sell out privacy rights to law enforcement.

It's not the first time, either. Last year, he did the same thing with SB 914, a bill that would have required police to obtain a search warrant before searching an arrested individual’s cell phone incident to arrest.

In a short veto statement (PDF), Governor Brown recognized the need to update our privacy laws, but explained

It may be that legislative action is needed to keep the law current in our rapidly evolving electronic age. But I am not convinced that this bill strikes the right balance between the operational needs of law enforcement and individual expectations of privacy.

For Governor Brown, it appears the “right balance” is to tip the scales decisively in favor of law enforcement. Because while vetoing SB 1434, Governor Brown did sign AB 2055, a competing bill sponsored by the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office and supported by almost every state law enforcement agency, which claims to “require the issuance of a search warrant before a law enforcement agency could obtain GPS location information from any electronic tracking device.”

AB 2055 is a narrow response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Jones, which held the Fourth Amendment required law enforcement to obtain a search warrant before installing a GPS device on a car. In theory, AB 2055 changes California law to explicitly permit law enforcement to apply to a judge for a search warrant to install a GPS device. But in fact, it does not requirepolice to obtain a search warrant. It just says they can apply for one. So to the extent it attempts to codify Jones, it fails. And, more basically, there’s no need to codify Jones: the Supreme Court’s decision is the law and California law enforcement officials have to follow it, regardless of what state law says.

That’s not the only problem with AB 2055. That law only applies to GPS devices, and not the other myriad ways law enforcement can obtain location information without installing a GPS device. With increasing concern about law enforcement’s growing addiction to warrantless cell phone tracking — which a federal appeals court in New Orleans will be hearing argument about tomorrow — any legislative action needs to be forward-looking and future-proof. And while we might expect a state that boasts the world's biggest technology companies and just legalized self-driving cars to move the law forward, Governor Brown has instead decided to maintain the status quo.

Ultimately law enforcement got exactly what it wanted with AB 2055, which is nothing at all. And while Governor Brown joins the chorus — which included Justice Alito in his concurring opinion in Jones — that solemnly speaks of the need to update our electronic privacy laws to reflect the changing technological landscape, his words ring hollow when he vetoes a bill that had bipartisan legislative support. Because in the end, all that's been done since the first federal electronic privacy bill was passed in 1986 has been a steady diet of allowing law enforcement to gorge itself on as much data and information they can eat without a warrant. It's no surprise that now they're hooked, they'll do whatever it takes to keep the information faucet on. Governor Brown's veto of SB 1434 only continues this dangerous trend.

Related Updates

The full weight of U.S. policing has descended upon protesters across the country as people take to the streets to denounce the police killings of Breonna Taylor, George Floyd, and countless others who have been subjected to police violence. Along with riot shields, tear gas, and other crowd control...

Your phone is your life. It’s where you communicate, get your news, take pictures and videos of your loved ones, relax and play games, and find a significant other. It can track your health, give you directions, remind you of events, and much more. It’s an incredibly helpful tool, but...

EFF has joined a broad coalition of civil liberties, civil rights, and labor advocates to oppose A.B. 2261, which threatens to normalize the increased use of face surveillance of Californians where they live and work. Our allies include the ACLU of California, Oakland Privacy, the California Employment Lawyers Association, Service...

In the wake of nationwide protests against the police killings of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor, we urge protestors to stay safe, both physically and digitally. Our Surveillance Self Defense (SSD) Guide on attending a protest offers practical tips on how to maintain your privacy and minimize your digital...

With states beginning to ease shelter-in-place restrictions, the conversation on COVID-19 has turned to questions of when and how we can return to work, take kids to school, or plan air travel.Several countries and U.S. states, including the UK, Italy, Chile, Germany, and California, have expressed interest in...

When it comes to surveillance of our online lives, Internet service providers (ISPs) are some of the worst offenders. Last year, the state of Maine passed a law targeted at the harms ISPs do to their customers when they use and sell their personal information. Now that law is...

COVID-19, and containment efforts that rely on personal data, are shining a spotlight on a longstanding problem: our nation’s lack of sufficient laws to protect data privacy. Two bills before Congress attempt to solve this problem as to COVID-19 data. One is a good start that needs improvements. The other...

In a landmark decision, the German Constitutional Court has ruled that mass surveillance of telecommunications outside of Germany conducted on foreign nationals is unconstitutional. Thanks to the chief legal counsel, Gesellschaft für Freiheitsrechte (GFF), this a major victory for global civil liberties, but especially those that live and...